Well... to be accurate, Amazon itself isn't selling them. Those are being sold by other parties on Amazon. Anybody can do it. Open a merchant account and you can list just about anything for sale there. You don't even need to be a real business. I'm sure those sellers will get a few suckers at those prices, although the knowledgeable desperate people will probably get them for less on eBay.

DVD-A is not the same as DVD - both DVD-A and SACD are replacements for the CD, and both are based on the DVD video format. SACD "won", but it wasn't much of a victory because everybody still uses CD (except a small percentage at the high end - just like Laserdisk had during the VHS era).

I'm really nonplussed that people cannot see the differences between DVDA/SACD and HD DVD vs Blu-ray.

I don't think anyone here is ignoring the differences.

While not anywhere near a perfect analogy, it is still a valid and educational comparison. In particular, it demonstrates how a lack of focus on what consumers actually want can lead to a failed standard.

While not anywhere near a perfect analogy, it is still a valid and educational comparison. In particular, it demonstrates how a lack of focus on what consumers actually want can lead to a failed standard.

Maybe (and I certainly agree that the CE industry can be amazingly bone-headed on this count).

But high data audio formats were never pushed very hard, never had any consumer mind-share, never broke out as "the next thing", or even "a thing" in their own right at all. The ability to playback DVD based audio was just a subset of DVD features, somewhere in the packaging's bullet points. The discs to play back were just somewhere among the DVDs or CDs, with no guidance from retailers.

The HD-DVD/Blu-Ray rollout is of such a different order, in terms of advertising, sharply differentiated product category, industry support, shelf space, mind share, etc., etc., that I don't think DVD-A/SACD provides any useful lessons. If nothing else there was no comparable "we are now transitioning to high definition audio" buzz that might herd consumers towards upgrades-- nobody was buying "HD" speakers or amps and looking around for content.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

I agree that there are many differences. But to ignore the precedent is to disregard one of the few recent examples of consumer media-format roll-outs.

Back when SACD and DVD-A were the "buzz", every price tag for DVD players in best buy and circuit city listed their compatibility. There are only a few feature bullet points on these price tags. If you were to talk to any salesperson about buying a new DVD player, they'd immediately launch into a discussion of these two next generation formats. There was a buzz. Granted, less buzz, but significant all the same. Compatibility with these two formats was one of the few feature differences between players. It is what people talked and thought about when buying players. Most had never seen the acronyms before but these people generally asked about the features after reading the price tag.

As the masses slowly learned that DVD-A and SACD were a pain in the ass, the formats steadily dropped off the radar.

Why ignore this pertinent bit of recent history? It is one of the most relevant precedents.

One can get completely caught up in the discussion of market backing, units sold, library size, and technical specs. But it all comes down to will consumers actually adopt the format. None of these other factors ended up influencing the success/failure of SACD and DVD-A. Perhaps the same will be true of HD-DVD and blu-ray.

Clean audio is harder to see benefits from than clean video (plus, who is really clamoring for 5.1 channel CDs). I have had people listen to a CD and a SACD, and they say "Ya, it sounds better, but not remarkably". Then I show them broadcast TV, and HDTV and they fall out of their seats. The difference in video quality is VERY easy to pick out. Even comparing DVD to HDTV you can clearly see a difference. That is the difference between the two format wars. One was a small step forward, while the other is a huge leap.

Agreed. SACD and DVD-A were solutions to an essentially non-existent problem. Snobby audiophile blather to the contrary, stereo CD actually represents very, very good audio fidelity. To the extent that some of these special recordings truly do have spectacular sound, they owe most, if not all, of that sense of quality to meticulous recording engineering, and not to insane sampling sizes and bit rates like 24 bit/192 kHz.

The only thing lacking with standard CDs is realistic sound staging, and, other than for special effects in movies (where surround sound finally took off for popular use) very, very few people actually care that much about sound staging. Olde-fashioned two-channel stereo is good enough to break the flatness of mono, giving a sense of spaciousness to music, and (apart from writers for Stereophile magazine, et al, paid by the word to drone on endlessly about such things) that's more than enough to make 99% of listeners happy, listeners who aren't worried about being able to close their eyes and feel out the exact seating arrangements of the musicians they're listening to.

The improvement of HD video over standard video, is much, much easier to sense and to appreciate than the difference between SACD and standard CD. HD video, whatever the delivery mechanism, is here to stay and will supplant a lot of SD video applications. Even without a format war, however -- if SACD had been completely unchallenged in the market -- I truly doubt it would have ever become much more than a niche product.

They didn't fail because people didn't want the improved fidelity. They failed because the improved fidelity was accompanied by tremendous hassle.

This is really the crux of why I push the analogy. Specifications and media library size are almost irrelevant when compared to the consumer tolerance of hassle and required fiddling.

Improved fidelity and convenience, with no additional hassle, is what will gain a media format widespread consumer adoption.

Certainly, the difference between CD and SACD/DVD-A is less discernable than between DVDs and HD-DVD/blu-ray. Nobody has disputed that point. Instead, what I'm getting at is that fidelity is less important to the masses than convenience. Most people still connect DVD players via a composite cord, not bothering with S-Video, let alone component, HDMI, etc.

Consumers want convenience foremost. Increased resolution is a secondary demand (for the masses). The DVD-A/SACD analogy is excellent for illustrating this. Many of the above posts are dismissive of this concept. I consider this a failure to learn from the failure of DVD-A and SACD.

SACD and DVDA required new players and then the horror of analog connections, 6 of them. I knew I wasn't buying into a format that had $20 discs and required me to triple the amount of cable I'm running to my AVR.

Today the audiophile can take advantage of hardware like the Oppo 981 which plays DVD/SACD/DVDA and runs it all over HMDI. Now I'll take a look at the format. Hell there's enough DVDA and SACDs floating around for me to take advantage of some of my favorite titles.

I have no doubt that Universal players will have far more of an impact in video than audio.

Just wait until you have a DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-ray/SACD/DVDA/Divx player connecting to a nice AVR with a single HDMI cable and networking if you so choose. I'd pay a pretty penny for a Pioneer/Onkyo/Denon model.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

Just to throw a curve ball into the mix, here's another aspect of the audio/video format distinction: consumer demand for fidelity from each of the two are heading in opposite directions.

More and more people are becoming aware of HD and what it offers. HD formats are coming on line from all directions-- dl, disc, broadcast, camcorder, etc.

Audio, on the other hand, seems to have suffered some kind of mass decline in what is perceived as "acceptable".

We've gone from a brief window where the possibility of going CDs one better with higher sample rates or or greater bit depth or multiple channels seemed like the logical next step in the long march from wax cylinders to CD, to the era of downloads and iPods and massive libraries on hard drives. Quantity over quality.

How hard a sell is a "better than CD" audio format, when most people seem to be fine with 128kbps AAC files?

There really seems to be a ceiling (for most people) for "sounds fine to me" audio that CDs apparently had already overshot.

Whereas our tech is just now reaching that point for video.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Just to throw a curve ball into the mix, here's another aspect of the audio/video format distinction: consumer demand for fidelity from each of the two are heading in opposite directions.

More and more people are becoming aware of HD and what it offers. HD formats are coming on line from all directions-- dl, disc, broadcast, camcorder, etc.

Audio, on the other hand, seems to have suffered some kind of mass decline in what is perceived as "acceptable".

We've gone from a brief window where the possibility of going CDs one better with higher sample rates or or greater bit depth or multiple channels seemed like the logical next step in the long march from wax cylinders to CD, to the era of downloads and iPods and massive libraries on hard drives. Quantity over quality.

How hard a sell is a "better than CD" audio format, when most people seem to be fine with 128kbps AAC files?

There really seems to be a ceiling (for most people) for "sounds fine to me" audio that CDs apparently had already overshot.

Whereas our tech is just now reaching that point for video.

I'd make some of the same points WRT HD. In the USA HDTV will not be required for OTAB until Februrary 2009. HDTV and HD player costs are still significantly higher WRT SD TV's and DVD players. HD versus DVD media (ROM) are the same, so that's a draw. Of course we have two competing HD (ROM) formats. And on the subject of picture quality, VHS (analog tape) versus DVD (digital disk), compared to DVD (digital disk) versus HD (digital disk), IMHO, the jump in quality from VHS to DVD was greater than the jump from DVD to HD.

I jumped into DVD in 1998 (I believe) at the $500 price point (3G Panasonic component outputs player) when there were just a few hundred DVD titles, but of course I didn't have to get a new TV to see the improved picture quality (via existing S-Video capable TV) initially (I eventually bought one with component inputs).

IMHO, 2007 WRT HD would be equivalent to 1998 WRT DVD, except for the additional requirement for a HDTV this time (which by law isn't needed until 2009 (and even then we will have cheap converter boxen)) and an ongoing HD format war. So, in closing I'd SWAG that HD market penetration won't be as rapid as the DVD transition was, but only time will tell.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

I'd make some of the same points WRT HD. In the USA HDTV will not be required for OTAB until Februrary 2009.

HDTV is not going to be required. Digital-only TV broadcasting is what is supposed to become mandatory, with broadcasters returning the share of the broadcast spectrum they are currently using for analog simulcast. Broadcasters will be perfectly free to broadcast SD (Standard Def) digital video only, with some choosing to broadcast up to four different SD sub channels using the same bandwidth they'd need to run one HD broadcast.

Realize, of course, that the original deadline for pure digital was 2006, which obviously had to be extended. I have no idea how firm the 2009 deadline really is.

HDTV is not going to be required. Digital-only TV broadcasting is what is supposed to become mandatory, with broadcasters returning the share of the broadcast spectrum they are currently using for analog simulcast. Broadcasters will be perfectly free to broadcast SD (Standard Def) digital video only, with some choosing to broadcast up to four different SD sub channels using the same bandwidth they'd need to run one HD broadcast.

Realize, of course, that the original deadline for pure digital was 2006, which obviously had to be extended. I have no idea how firm the 2009 deadline really is.

OK, we won't need HDTV in 2009, but you'll still need converter boxen to view SD/HD digital signal on an analog TV. But you still need a HDTV to gain the full advantage of HD picture. Either way slow adoption of HDTV's (due to replacement costs) for OTAB will, IMHO, impact the adoption rate (i. e. lower it) for HD digital media content.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

OK, we won't need HDTV in 2009, but you'll still need converter boxen to view SD/HD digital signal on an analog TV. But you still need a HDTV to gain the full advantage of HD picture. Either way slow adoption of HDTV's (due to replacement costs) for OTAB will, IMHO, impact the adoption rate (i. e. lower it) for HD digital media content.

I've never seen a single one of these hypothetical converter boxes people will need to receive OTA digital TV on their old analog TVs. Perhaps they won't crop up in stores or online until much closer to the transition date, but you have to wonder if people are really going to be ready for this. Portable analog TVs will essentially be rendered useless for portable use (or even for stationary use if they don't have an antenna terminals in addition to a telescoping antennas).

It will be very interesting to see if the deadline is pushed forward yet again, or if the deadline sticks this time. Seems that there will have to be a lot of public service announcements leading up to the analog shut down, and even then, there will be lot of griping from people incensed into being forced to buy a new TV or a converter box, including from some people who are shocked, shocked I say, that when they turn on their trusty 30 year-old TV that it doesn't work any more.

I've never seen a single one of these hypothetical converter boxes people will need to receive OTA digital TV on their old analog TVs. Perhaps they won't crop up in stores or online until much closer to the transition date, but you have to wonder if people are really going to be ready for this. Portable analog TVs will essentially be rendered useless for portable use (or even for stationary use if they don't have an antenna terminals in addition to a telescoping antennas).

It will be very interesting to see if the deadline is pushed forward yet again, or if the deadline sticks this time. Seems that there will have to be a lot of public service announcements leading up to the analog shut down, and even then, there will be lot of griping from people incensed into being forced to buy a new TV or a converter box, including from some people who are shocked, shocked I say, that when they turn on their trusty 30 year-old TV that it doesn't work any more.

Quote:

How do I obtain and redeem converter box coupons?

During the period from January 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009, a household can request no more than two coupons, each valued at $40. All coupons will be sent to requesting households via the United States Postal Service. Recipients must redeem the coupons within 3 months of issuance, but may not combine their two coupons toward the purchase of a single converter box.

I remember the congressional debates (on C-SPAN), it was expected that the rebates would largely offset the cost of the conversion boxen (if there is a great enough demand, then economics of scale may lower the cost of boxen below the rebate itself, if not, and the public's SHTF, as it were, then I'd expect congress to revise the rebate program).

I'd also expect some manufacturers to include the EE stuff in newer analog TV's, if the analog sets are still significantly cheaper than HDTV's of a similar size at that time.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

The analogy between VHS/DVD and DVD/HD formats adoption is weak. DVD was clearly superior to VHS in terms of ease of use and picture quality However, the most important fact that allowed DVD to quickly reach critcal mass as a consumer product was that everyone had a TV that would work with it. That's certainly not true now. While HDTVs are "flying off the shelves" as someone stated, the overall percentage of homes that have a 1080i/1080p TVs must still be pretty low. (Note: does anyone know what the percentage is?) The price of these TVs are still too high for many consumers and until they drop significantly the critical mass needed to drive an HD-DVD format into the mainstream consumer market is lacking.

The analogy between VHS/DVD and DVD/HD formats adoption is weak. DVD was clearly superior to VHS in terms of ease of use and picture quality However, the most important fact that allowed DVD to quickly reach critcal mass as a consumer product was that everyone had a TV that would work with it. That's certainly not true now. While HDTVs are "flying off the shelves" as someone stated, the overall percentage of homes that have a 1080i/1080p TVs must still be pretty low. (Note: does anyone know what the percentage is?) The price of these TVs are still too high for many consumers and until they drop significantly the critical mass needed to drive an HD-DVD format into the mainstream consumer market is lacking.

You say the analogy is weak, but then go on to say pretty much the same thing I said? What is weak in the analogy? The analogy itself, and if so, why?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

The analogy between VHS/DVD and DVD/HD formats adoption is weak. DVD was clearly superior to VHS in terms of ease of use and picture quality However, the most important fact that allowed DVD to quickly reach critcal mass as a consumer product was that everyone had a TV that would work with it. That's certainly not true now. While HDTVs are "flying off the shelves" as someone stated, the overall percentage of homes that have a 1080i/1080p TVs must still be pretty low. (Note: does anyone know what the percentage is?) The price of these TVs are still too high for many consumers and until they drop significantly the critical mass needed to drive an HD-DVD format into the mainstream consumer market is lacking.

I think you make a good point about the TV market. Until HDTV's are in the same price range as a standard NTSC definition TV, and are in all sizes in every store, you just wont see complete market saturation. You can walk into a target and buy a Hello Kitty, Barbie, or Pixar Cars TV for your kid for under, or around $100 depending on where you live., and until HD has that kind if saturation, and also regular smaller personal TV's, and other things of that nature in the same $$$ range as SDTV's they probably wont break 35% of homes. If that.

I'm an early adopter. I've had mine for almost 5 years, and I paid heavy for it. I should have waited, and there s also that group of consumers that knows if the keep waiting they will pay what a SDTV costs now. I think my early estimation of 35% may even be a little high.

I'd say that Apple will offer neither BR, or HD in their lineups until someone offers equal priced drives in both formats.

That's just a guess., but Apple sometimes doesn't offer things until there is somewhat wide spread adoption.

Apple seems to jump the gun on some things (wireless, USB, mouse) when it seems likely to catch on, but tend to hold back on other things until they're widespread (PCIe, still no eSATA, etc.). I'd say that BR and HD-DVD fall into the second camp.

Apple seems to jump the gun on some things (wireless, USB, mouse) when it seems likely to catch on, but tend to hold back on other things until they're widespread (PCIe, still no eSATA, etc.). I'd say that BR and HD-DVD fall into the second camp.

Look at the timeline on those too. The first 3 were early days, and the second is todays Apple. Their trademark used to be all about bringing new technology out first but it has bitten them in ass more than once. If your the only one doing it, and you only have 2% market share your prices are going to be astronomical. That drove Mac prices up in the past. Now Apples computers are usually less expensive than their competitors for computers using similar components. Apple is much smarter now, and knows they can wait on some technology. Especially something that is still really expensive.

Wow thanks for that. You can see exactly how much faster Blu Ray has grown in the last 30 days compared to HD-DVD

Sales-rank of top 10 products:

HD = from about 700 to 494. = gained 206 points.

BR = from about 2750 to 1425. gained 1325 points. that is almost 7 x the gain in just the last 30 days.

HD DVD is the current leader in every category other than how many movies are available in which HD-DVD have just been overtaken by Blu-Ray, but with that kind of growth I don't see how anyone can deny that the shift has gone to Blu-Ray.

Thanks for the reassurance.

Sales ranks again have continued to favor Blu-Ray since this was posted. Huge leaps again for Blu-Ray, but HD-DVD is now slipping away.

First, Paramount and DreamWorks Animation get bought off to go HD DVD exclusive. Now word is Toshiba's trying to romance Warner into flipping. The only problem is Sony's doing its best to seduce the last dual-format studio into exclusively shacking up with Blu-ray